I apologize for my prolonged absence. Life has literally been beating me over the head the past month or two. I've had a lot of work responsibilities that require putting in a lot of long hours... all to a good result, luckily. A promotion! Whoot. :) That said, with that comes even more pressure to keep putting in the hours. Topped with the holiday season and various odds and ends, there hasn't been much time for ME time... i.e. writing time. But luckily, with the promotion I'm able to reorganize a few things and will have a lot more available time to write in the upcoming months. I'm jonesing for some time with WIS.
I don't have a lot to talk about on the writing front, but thought I'd pose a question I've been wrestling with for... well, a long time. Book reviews. As writers, do you write them--even when you may have some negative things to say? As readers, do you hold writers to a higher standard than you would readers? Would it bother you to see a writer publish a negative review of another author's book?
I have to say, I'm torn on this subject, and probably fall in the minority. I do, generally speaking, think it's okay for authors to review books--even when they may not have altogether pleasant things to say about a particular work. I guess my reasoning is that if I shelled out my hard earned duckets to purchase a book...if I read a book from cover to cover with my limited amount of reading time, I'm sort of entitled to state my opinion of said book. Even when it's not a glowing review. For me, picking up a book is when Jen the author steps aside... and Jen the reader, the girl who wants to be swept away by a story takes over. I'm just as likely to be over the moon over a book...or in some cases, disappointed beyond all measure...as the next person.
Is the "right" philosophy to only say something if I have something nice to say?
Do authors REALLY have more influence over whether someone will pick up a book?